Klepto:For those who say the government should have the right to mandate that a private business shouldn't be allowed deny customers or employees based on race: should an elderly black store owner be able to refuse to hire or serve a Neo-Nazi skin head?

Erm, isn't the whole point of that rule that he can't deny service based on something like race specifically? I'm pretty sure behaviours, especially disruptive, endangering or threatening, aren't covered by that. Should a black store owner be able to refuse a Neo-Nazi because he's white? No. Should he be able to refuse because he's a Neo-Nazi? Sure. I don't quite see where the perceived double-standard is in that. Should a white business owner be able to refuse a violent Black Liberation Terrorist? Sure. Should he be able to refuse because he's black? No. The fact that discrimination based on race is prohibited doesn't somehow negate other reasons for not providing service or hiring; that's not that strange or complex a concept.

Klepto:For those who say the government should have the right to mandate that a private business shouldn't be allowed deny customers or employees based on race: should an elderly black store owner be able to refuse to hire or serve a Neo-Nazi skin head?

Now if you mean that an elderly black man should be allowed to deny service to whites, hell no they shouldn't, same standard as the reverse applies.

I don't see the relevance of the "choice factor in any of this. Why should the store owner care whether or not the person chose to be the "offensive thing"? Can an anti-Semite refuse to hire/serve Jewish people? And does that mean people shouldn't be able to not hire/serve those with disgusting disfigurements? Or actually, does that only apply if the disfigurements were caused accidentally, but not if they were purposefully self-inflicted? Does it also mean that I can't not invite people to a party because of their color?

Klepto:For those who say the government should have the right to mandate that a private business shouldn't be allowed deny customers or employees based on race: should an elderly black store owner be able to refuse to hire or serve a Neo-Nazi skin head?

Erm, isn't the whole point of that rule that he can't deny service based on something like race specifically? I'm pretty sure behaviours, especially disruptive, endangering or threatening, aren't covered by that. Should a black store owner be able to refuse a Neo-Nazi because he's white? No. Should he be able to refuse because he's a Neo-Nazi? Sure. I don't quite see where the perceived double-standard is in that. Should a white business owner be able to refuse a violent Black Liberation Terrorist? Sure. Should he be able to refuse because he's black? No. The fact that discrimination based on race is prohibited doesn't somehow negate other reasons for not providing service or hiring; that's not that strange or complex a concept.

Klepto:For those who say the government should have the right to mandate that a private business shouldn't be allowed deny customers or employees based on race: should an elderly black store owner be able to refuse to hire or serve a Neo-Nazi skin head?

Now if you mean that an elderly black man should be allowed to deny service to whites, hell no they shouldn't, same standard as the reverse applies.

I don't see the relevance of the "choice factor in any of this. Why should the store owner care whether or not the person chose to be the "offensive thing"? Can an anti-Semite refuse to hire/serve Jewish people? And does that mean people shouldn't be able to not hire/serve those with disgusting disfigurements? Or actually, does that only apply if the disfigurements were caused accidentally, but not if they were purposefully self-inflicted? Does it also mean that I can't not invite people to a party because of their color?

You know....for such a supposedly left wing website, I've already found more than one pro-segregationist.

I got nothing more to say to you. I was hoping that society kicked scum like you to the curb already and put that beast to rest, but I was tragically mistaken.

Klepto:I don't see the relevance of the "choice factor in any of this.

And I don't see the relevance of non-race examples regarding a law that's about racial discrimination. Most of these sound like little more than weak strawmen.

The issue at hand is why, and to what degree should the government be able to interfere with an individual's property rights? I hold that the assertions by you, Kitten, and others are completely arbitrary. You pick and choose random issues and then ignore principled equivalents. Why is it just race? Why should people be forcibly stopped from being racist but should be permitted to be prejudiced against any number of other factors, voluntary and involuntary? And why does the voluntary factor matter in the first place? Why should a person's prejudice against chosen factors be permissible while prejudice against unchosen factors be ignored?

I don't expect you to answer all of these questions, I am just trying to point out why I think your assertions are arbitrary.

Klepto:For those who say the government should have the right to mandate that a private business shouldn't be allowed deny customers or employees based on race

Don't know where you get that from. This isn't about forcing anything, it's about upholding the law. The law says basically: non-discrimination.

Obviously such laws need to be enforced if a business decides to break the law and discriminate. If the owner of that business wants to discriminate so badly, they're free to close down their company and emigrate to a place where it's legal. But 'why can't I discriminate people in my own business' falls in the same category as 'why can't I rape a woman if she's in MY house?'.

And before we go on an American tangent again: Law enforcement can be presumed to have some common sense, and you can't legislate for every eventuality.

Remember those folks who go "You choose to behave homosexual" to justify discrimination..? Same thing.Most supposed 'neonazis' are just rebelling kids who don't know what they're talking about, and grow out of it either by age or finding a life.It's not really a free choice they make, and the vast majority of them don't mean what they say.

The worst possible thing you can do is discriminate against them, because it reinforces their group identity and radicalises them. It's only after that happens that you start to get hatecrimes and violence.By contrast, deradicalisation programs that involved treating them normally, listening to them, giving them a job etc are a smashing succes. And those are targeted at the older members, roughly 21-30, who are already more radical than the kids.

Blablahb:Don't know where you get that from. This isn't about forcing anything, it's about upholding the law. The law says basically: non-discrimination.

What law is that? To my knowledge, there is no federal law in the US which prohibits *private discrimination except the Civil Rights Act, which is precisely what I and others are arguing against (or that portion of it).

Obviously such laws need to be enforced if a business decides to break the law and discriminate. If the owner of that business wants to discriminate so badly, they're free to close down their company and emigrate to a place where it's legal. But 'why can't I discriminate people in my own business' falls in the same category as 'why can't I rape a woman if she's in MY house?'.

So I take it you were for the enforcement of mandatory segregation laws prior to 1964? Oh, and you are in favor of enforcing anti-gay marriage laws, keeping marijuana illegal, and bombing children in Afghanistan with drone strikes. After all, these are the current laws and you are free to leave the country at any time. Saying, "why can't I, a man, marry another man," is the same as saying, "why can't I rape a man."

Because back then people value differences vs someone's money now no one with common sense would do it.

So you're trying to tell me that capitalism didn't exist before the last half of the 20th century? I find that hard to swallow.

And considering we still have people arguing for the ability to racially segregate even in this day, I'd say that "common sense" doesn't apply either.

We should have right to say no just as other people have the right to divorce, and seeing as how liberals view racist with a double standard design for class warfare vs republicans. You can know why I am done being moderate, because their are none in the democrat partly. Just look how people treat black panther vs far right groups. Feminist want gender equality, but don't speak up for the women oppressed in the middle east, and look how biased our court system is. You want common sense drop the liberal double standards, because we are tired of it. Racist, sexist, all words to subvert freedom of speech, and expression.

As for the people who refused to serve other people than you can make a big fuss about it in the news, and it goes bankrupt. I put the constitution first, and foremost not because I hate other races, but to protect my rights.

We should have right to say no just as other people have the right to divorce, and seeing as how liberals view racist with a double standard design for class warfare vs republicans. You can know why I am done being moderate, because their are none in the democrat partly. Just look how people treat black panther vs far right groups. Feminist want gender equality, but don't speak up for the women oppressed in the middle east, and look how biased our court system is. You want common sense drop the liberal double standards, because we are tired of it. Racist, sexist, all words to subvert freedom of speech, and expression.

As for the people who refused to serve other people than you can make a big fuss about it in the news, and it goes bankrupt. I put the constitution first, and foremost not because I hate other races, but to protect my rights.

If you dropped sensible and realistic views just because others failed miserably in finding theirs i feel kinda sorry for you. My persuit of understanding what is politically ideal is shaped by my views and perceptions and not by the mere existence of those who are, in my view, wrong and lunatic. Some people might call that "Being the bigger man". There are obviously moderate democrats. Dont be silly. You dont win points for hyperbole. There are moderate republicans. See i didnt combust :P

You demand individual people "drop the liberal double standard" as if the hivemind will react according to the moderate view of one person. Cmon, what the hell can I do to "Drop the liberal double standard" even though the individual you are talking to might not hold those double standards. Ill treat republicans with the respect that individual deserves and i ask you do the same. Nothing about this generalization even remotely makes sense. Its utterly ridiculous to just unload my hatred of Christian groups who are vocally against homosexuality against my moderate girlfriend. Likewise its silly to demand "We" drop the double standard when the individual might be equally as eager to drop it whoever the fuck "we" entails. And how do we even make "Us" (who is this?) drop it. Assassination? Intimidation? Tracking down every last one Jehovahs Witness style and converting them from idiocy?

Ive read countless feminist blogs about the acid attacks and other horrible injustices, as well as hosting the videos of women driving in protest in countries where said action is forbidden. It entirely depends on how you define "speak up". Its entirely possible to support a cause without actually going there and starting a revolution. What does speak up even mean? Is it actual action as a result of speaking? "Oh look a foreigner said something, BEST STOP BEING SO GORRAM SEXIST :D". Changing discriminatory legislation is hard. If youre going to quote the constitution be aware that its writers wrote it while owning slaves and supporting the castration of homosexuals. All of us support causes we could physically do more for.

I dont think we should NEED to legislate racism and sexism laws to defend people. Our society holds people to a standard. Companies known to infringe on rights are equally as likely to be boycotted and lose profits. Im glad homophobic and racist companies die, and im EVEN more glad when they do so without the need for legislation. We are free to starve anyone we want of our money. Its glorious. In theory.

Unfortunately when homophobes or racists make up a majority in a certain area does that mean, democratically, they deserve a second class citizenship? If youre unlucky enough to be black or gay in an area where you WILL be rejected based on those things people should be able to live their gorram lives. I think to a degree we do need to protect people from discrimination in government services such as public transport. I also think we need to protect people from discrimination in healthcare and basic needs. People shouldnt be denied treatment based on colour or creed.

Most supposed 'neonazis' are just rebelling kids who don't know what they're talking about, and grow out of it either by age or finding a life.It's not really a free choice they make, and the vast majority of them don't mean what they say.

The worst possible thing you can do is discriminate against them, because it reinforces their group identity and radicalises them. It's only after that happens that you start to get hatecrimes and violence.By contrast, deradicalisation programs that involved treating them normally, listening to them, giving them a job etc are a smashing succes. And those are targeted at the older members, roughly 21-30, who are already more radical than the kids.

I'm sorry, but more often then not once a skinhead, always a skinhead, including the tattoos that show your commitment to that ideal. Also, kids don't become neo-nazis or skinheads as a rebellious teen. They become one when they honestly believe the drivel those groups put forward. A rebellious teen is just a rebellious teen.

kiri2tsubasa:I'm sorry, but more often then not once a skinhead, always a skinhead, including the tattoos that show your commitment to that ideal.

And on what do you base that generalising and provably wrong claim? Because for one thing, deradicalisation programs have shown to work.

kiri2tsubasa: Also, kids don't become neo-nazis or skinheads as a rebellious teen.

Then how come I watched exactly that happen with people from the same village?

You're just going on your prejudices here for as far as I can tell.

And be carefull when trying to back up those statements. There's extreme-left fascist groups out there who spread misinformation on the subject, to justify the political violence they employ. An example is the AFA terrorist movement which has branches in most of western Europe, and busies itself attacking demonstrations, squatting, arson, vandalism, assault, death threats and the odd assasination attempt.

Most supposed 'neonazis' are just rebelling kids who don't know what they're talking about, and grow out of it either by age or finding a life.It's not really a free choice they make, and the vast majority of them don't mean what they say.

The worst possible thing you can do is discriminate against them, because it reinforces their group identity and radicalises them. It's only after that happens that you start to get hatecrimes and violence.By contrast, deradicalisation programs that involved treating them normally, listening to them, giving them a job etc are a smashing succes. And those are targeted at the older members, roughly 21-30, who are already more radical than the kids.

I'm sorry, but more often then not once a skinhead, always a skinhead, including the tattoos that show your commitment to that ideal. Also, kids don't become neo-nazis or skinheads as a rebellious teen. They become one when they honestly believe the drivel those groups put forward. A rebellious teen is just a rebellious teen.

Skinhead is a subculture. Neo-nazi is a political ideology. There's a vast difference (Same as there are Punks and Nazi-Punks, or Liberal Christians and Conservative Christians). Please remember this.

Klepto:I don't see the relevance of the "choice factor in any of this.

Because the laws are ultimately concerning morality, and morality is dependent on a free choice. That's where we draw the line.

You might feel you have the right to treat people however you want, because that's what Freedom is all about. But you're wrong. Your kind of freedom, where people can ultimately do whatever they want, would devolve any nation into anarchy. If you counter by saying 'No, people can do what they want, as long as they don't hurt another person', well, we deem segregation hurtful. We have chosen to restrict this freedom from all of us, because the damage it causes isn't worth it.

Most supposed 'neonazis' are just rebelling kids who don't know what they're talking about, and grow out of it either by age or finding a life.It's not really a free choice they make, and the vast majority of them don't mean what they say.

The worst possible thing you can do is discriminate against them, because it reinforces their group identity and radicalises them. It's only after that happens that you start to get hatecrimes and violence.By contrast, deradicalisation programs that involved treating them normally, listening to them, giving them a job etc are a smashing succes. And those are targeted at the older members, roughly 21-30, who are already more radical than the kids.

I'm sorry, but more often then not once a skinhead, always a skinhead, including the tattoos that show your commitment to that ideal. Also, kids don't become neo-nazis or skinheads as a rebellious teen. They become one when they honestly believe the drivel those groups put forward. A rebellious teen is just a rebellious teen.

Skinhead is a subculture. Neo-nazi is a political ideology. There's a vast difference (Same as there are Punks and Nazi-Punks, or Liberal Christians and Conservative Christians). Please remember this.

Klepto:I don't see the relevance of the "choice factor in any of this.

Because the laws are ultimately concerning morality, and morality is dependent on a free choice. That's where we draw the line.

[/quote]

Not that I think morality should be regulated by the government, but to the extent that it is, this explanation shoots at the wrong target. The ethics such laws are trying to punish is wrongful discrimination; why on earth should it matter if the discrimination is against something chosen or not chosen? Why is it ethically permissible to discriminate against a Jew, but not a natural-born Israeli? The "choice" in question should be the choice to discriminate or not discriminate, not whether a person can choose whether or not to fall into a certain category.

I'm sorry, but more often then not once a skinhead, always a skinhead, including the tattoos that show your commitment to that ideal. Also, kids don't become neo-nazis or skinheads as a rebellious teen. They become one when they honestly believe the drivel those groups put forward. A rebellious teen is just a rebellious teen.

Skinhead is a subculture. Neo-nazi is a political ideology. There's a vast difference (Same as there are Punks and Nazi-Punks, or Liberal Christians and Conservative Christians). Please remember this.

Klepto:I don't see the relevance of the "choice factor in any of this.

Because the laws are ultimately concerning morality, and morality is dependent on a free choice. That's where we draw the line.

Not that I think morality should be regulated by the government, but to the extent that it is, this explanation shoots at the wrong target. The ethics such laws are trying to punish is wrongful discrimination; why on earth should it matter if the discrimination is against something chosen or not chosen?

Because, once again, if I could not help being what I am (born a Jew, or Black, or mentally handicapped) then I can not be held to blame for such things, and thus discriminating is not morally permissible.If, however, I could be held to blame, because it was one of my choices, then it is morally permissible, or at least excusable to some.Overall, it's irrelevant, because the reason you can't discriminate is because we as a society has judged X forms of discrimination to be illegal (where you have no choice, for instance) but others not illegal ('No shoes, no shirt, no service', for instance). Why? Because we deem some standards as alright, and others as not alright. Why? Well, because they either appeal to an intuition or tradition that in itself might need changing, or because it overall leads to the best consequences.

Ultimately, ALL morality is regulated by the government, because it conflicts with our given laws.

Because, once again, if I could not help being what I am (born a Jew, or Black, or mentally handicapped) then I can not be held to blame for such things, and thus discriminating is not morally permissible.If, however, I could be held to blame, because it was one of my choices, then it is morally permissible, or at least excusable to some.

You repeated yourself but gave no further explanation. Why does it matter if it is the individual's fault that he or she falls into a category? Why is that type of discrimination "better"? Why is the burden on the victim instead of the discriminator?

Overall, it's irrelevant, because the reason you can't discriminate is because we as a society has judged X forms of discrimination to be illegal (where you have no choice, for instance) but others not illegal ('No shoes, no shirt, no service', for instance). Why? Because we deem some standards as alright, and others as not alright. Why? Well, because they either appeal to an intuition or tradition that in itself might need changing, or because it overall leads to the best consequences.

I never made any such decision. A group of people I have never met nor will ever meet have told me what I can and cannot do with my property. There are of course, morally proper reasons to discriminate, such as the "no shirt, no shoes" which is done for sanitary and aesthetic reasons, but discriminating based on chosen religion is not one of them. Wither way, an individual may do with his property what he pleases as long as it does not violate another's rights regardless of what a group of other people may say or think.

Overall, it's irrelevant, because the reason you can't discriminate is because we as a society has judged X forms of discrimination to be illegal (where you have no choice, for instance) but others not illegal ('No shoes, no shirt, no service', for instance). Why? Because we deem some standards as alright, and others as not alright. Why? Well, because they either appeal to an intuition or tradition that in itself might need changing, or because it overall leads to the best consequences.

I never made any such decision. A group of people I have never met nor will ever meet have told me what I can and cannot do with my property. There are of course, morally proper reasons to discriminate, such as the "no shirt, no shoes" which is done for sanitary and aesthetic reasons, but discriminating based on chosen religion is not one of them. .

And here is your error. "No shirt, no shoes" is fair, because it is unsanitary. Alright. Why is sanitation good? Well, because without it, it causes harm. So no shirt, no shoes = Causing harm.Why do we ban discrimination based on religion? Because it causes harm. It causes conflicts and internal strife within our system. We do not wish that. So it's banned.

"Wither way, an individual may do with his property what he pleases as long as it does not violate another's rights regardless of what a group of other people may say or think"Yeah..And guess what? Freedom of Religion is a right, and you are violating theirs by discriminating. Such is the definition of it. It's not just the freedom to have any religion they wish, but the freedom not to be discriminated against because we chose to have it. That's why we can't ban people from schools because they are of the Muslim faith, etc.

And ultimately, this is irrelevant too, because natural rights are nonsense-on-stilts. The only reason you think you have a certain right is because we have written it into law (the constitution, for example) that you have it. We, as a society, can take your right away, should we so please.Unless, of course, you think rights are given by God. But then we got a whole different issue at hand.

If you, on the other hand, do NOT feel yourself bound by the social contract, because you did not agree to it, then you don't have to. But that means WE don't have to fulfill any obligation towards YOU, and since WE are stronger than YOU, bend over. We will simply force you into agreeing.Reject the social contract = Might Makes Right.

Overall, it's irrelevant, because the reason you can't discriminate is because we as a society has judged X forms of discrimination to be illegal (where you have no choice, for instance) but others not illegal ('No shoes, no shirt, no service', for instance). Why? Because we deem some standards as alright, and others as not alright. Why? Well, because they either appeal to an intuition or tradition that in itself might need changing, or because it overall leads to the best consequences.

I never made any such decision. A group of people I have never met nor will ever meet have told me what I can and cannot do with my property. There are of course, morally proper reasons to discriminate, such as the "no shirt, no shoes" which is done for sanitary and aesthetic reasons, but discriminating based on chosen religion is not one of them. .

And here is your error. "No shirt, no shoes" is fair, because it is unsanitary. Alright. Why is sanitation good? Well, because without it, it causes harm. So no shirt, no shoes = Causing harm.Why do we ban discrimination based on religion? Because it causes harm. It causes conflicts and internal strife within our system. We do not wish that. So it's banned.

"Wither way, an individual may do with his property what he pleases as long as it does not violate another's rights regardless of what a group of other people may say or think"Yeah..And guess what? Freedom of Religion is a right, and you are violating theirs by discriminating. Such is the definition of it. It's not just the freedom to have any religion they wish, but the freedom not to be discriminated against because we chose to have it. That's why we can't ban people from schools because they are of the Muslim faith, etc.

Rights exist in a hierarchical nature. I have the right to private property, meaning I have the right to do with my property as I see fit. But of course that does not include the right to another individual on my property (except out of self-defense) because then I am violating someone else's rights (their right to liberty/life. Stopping someone from shopping in or being hired by a store, for whatever reason, is not a violation of rights, because no one has a valid claim on the use of another's property without consent. Likewise, stopping someone from praying on my property is not a violation of rights; they can pray on their own property or on someone's who gives them permission, just not mine. Therefore, everyone should be allowed to discriminate on any grounds they want to. What I was getting at in my previous argument was the extremely arbitrary nature of the people who think discrimination should be illegal.

And ultimately, this is irrelevant too, because natural rights are nonsense-on-stilts. The only reason you think you have a certain right is because we have written it into law (the constitution, for example) that you have it. We, as a society, can take your right away, should we so please.Unless, of course, you think rights are given by God. But then we got a whole different issue at hand.

In other words, you are a believer in mob-rule. Yes, natural rights do exist. They are political extensions of the objective nature of man. Namely, man relies upon reason and volition to live qua man, and reason and volition cannot exist under the threat of coercion. Therefore, individuals have the right to be free from coercion. They do not have the right to form a mob and force minorities to do their bidding.

I never made any such decision. A group of people I have never met nor will ever meet have told me what I can and cannot do with my property. There are of course, morally proper reasons to discriminate, such as the "no shirt, no shoes" which is done for sanitary and aesthetic reasons, but discriminating based on chosen religion is not one of them. .

And here is your error. "No shirt, no shoes" is fair, because it is unsanitary. Alright. Why is sanitation good? Well, because without it, it causes harm. So no shirt, no shoes = Causing harm.Why do we ban discrimination based on religion? Because it causes harm. It causes conflicts and internal strife within our system. We do not wish that. So it's banned.

"Wither way, an individual may do with his property what he pleases as long as it does not violate another's rights regardless of what a group of other people may say or think"Yeah..And guess what? Freedom of Religion is a right, and you are violating theirs by discriminating. Such is the definition of it. It's not just the freedom to have any religion they wish, but the freedom not to be discriminated against because we chose to have it. That's why we can't ban people from schools because they are of the Muslim faith, etc.

Rights exist in a hierarchical nature. I have the right to private property, meaning I have the right to do with my property as I see fit. But of course that does not include the right to another individual on my property (except out of self-defense) because then I am violating someone else's rights (their right to liberty/life. Stopping someone from shopping in or being hired by a store, for whatever reason, is not a violation of rights, because no one has a valid claim on the use of another's property without consent. Likewise, stopping someone from praying on my property is not a violation of rights; they can pray on their own property or on someone's who gives them permission, just not mine. Therefore, everyone should be allowed to discriminate on any grounds they want to. What I was getting at in my previous argument was the extremely arbitrary nature of the people who think discrimination should be illegal.

And ultimately, this is irrelevant too, because natural rights are nonsense-on-stilts. The only reason you think you have a certain right is because we have written it into law (the constitution, for example) that you have it. We, as a society, can take your right away, should we so please.Unless, of course, you think rights are given by God. But then we got a whole different issue at hand.

In other words, you are a believer in mob-rule. Yes, natural rights do exist. They are political extensions of the objective nature of man. Namely, man relies upon reason and volition to live qua man, and reason and volition cannot exist under the threat of coercion. Therefore, individuals have the right to be free from coercion. They do not have the right to form a mob and force minorities to do their bidding.

Sir, Democracy IS a mob-rule, and what keeps us in line is largely (but not solely) the threat of coercion. Police, military, social stigmatization. It's what makes our society work. Take a look at any war-zone, and you'll see what happens when it is removed.I do not believe in objective moral facts, since there is significant lack of proof. If you wish to claim that you have X right as per nature, then I can claim I have Y right as per nature. I see no reason why either Freedom of Speech or Religion or Property should be taken as granted. Honestly, we haven't had the two first for a vast period of time, they are recent inventions.

As for your argument concerning property, you are right that I have no legal right to pray on your property, or in your place of business. But I do have a legal right to shop there, no matter my religion. That's because we have made a distinction to what constitutes a violation of rights and what does not. This is a violation.Now, you disagree. Well, then you will have to answer my above question: What makes YOUR interpretation of 'natural rights' as the correct one? Why can't I claim 'No, it's a natural right not to be discriminated against due to my religion, but it is not a natural right to not be discriminated against because I am not wearing a shirt'? If rights are natural, and not to be subjected to laws, then you are in a tight spot when deciding who's definition of 'rights' we are to use.

In fact, I reject your natural right of property. Now what are you going to do? Call the police? Gee, sounds like Mob-Rule to me.

He believes in preventing FEDERAL oppression, but if your STATE wants to oppress you, he's just fine with it.

He doesn't have religious views that he wants to push upon anyone and he believe in MORE freedom than any other political party except anarchists.

Yet he wanted to overturn the Civil Rights Act and also was in favor of overturning Lawrence V Texas...you know, the SC decision that says that your state can't fucking throw you in jail for consentual gay sex.

He isn't against civil rights, he is against the Civil Rights Act because it gave the federal government unprecedented power over private business and private property. He also said anti-sodomy laws are rediculous but said the Lawrence V Texas used imaginary constitutional language that gave privacy a priority over the 9th and 10th amendments(State rights). He doesn't want states to pass stupid laws, he just believe the fed should follow the constitution.

I think a large reason for why Ron Paul was destined to never be a true contender for the presidency, and why his disciples are so difficult to deal with, is because of the "cut off your nose to spite your face" approach to things. For example, wanting to overturn laws that were passed in the interest of protecting civil liberties and oppressed minorities because he doesn't quite think they're in keeping with the constitution.

If the constitution is not in keeping with laws that are enacted to protect american citizens from unfair treatment, then it's the constitution that needs revision, not the laws; lucky that the document was designed for just such a purpose.

GunsmithKitten definitely could have presented their case better but I have to say that libertarians really need to take a hard critical look into the consequences of some of the things they stand for, because I'm not sure they really notice who they end up sharing beds with as a result.

EDIT: Regarding the OP, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm sure Rush once pet a puppy that was a cute a loveable puppy and Rush might have giggled a little and talked in a baby voice to it, and not eaten it or even given it a little nibble. That doesn't not make him a truly disgusting person.

Do you believe that a property owner has the right to refuse entrance to a person who openly carries a weapon?

I believe that he has such a right, if the law says he has such a right. There is nothing more to it. Or are you asking my opinion on the right to carry a weapon? If you ask me 'SHOULD we allow people to carry a weapon openly?' I might answer differently, and if you ask me 'SHOULD property owners have the legal right to willfully discriminate' I might answer wholly differently as well.

And Kitten, you need to calm down. No matter what one person might think of State vs Federal rights, or Homosexual Vs Straight rights, that isn't the issue. I, for example, fully agree with you. I want Federal laws to supersede State laws, and I want equality for homosexuals. But you only seem to mind Ron Paul's principle (that Federal Laws > State Laws) because it hurts YOUR cause. It makes me think that if Ron Paul would have argued for State > Federal, simply because Federal wanted to limit rights for homosexuals, you'd be all for him. And that's not how you should think about it. Hate the man for whatever reason, but his argument really isn't about limiting your rights, it's about Small vs Big Government.

Sir, Democracy IS a mob-rule, and what keeps us in line is largely (but not solely) the threat of coercion. Police, military, social stigmatization. It's what makes our society work. Take a look at any war-zone, and you'll see what happens when it is removed.

*Pure democracy is mob rule, and why you are inclined to support it is beyond me. As far as I can tell you are engaged in rigorous circular logic: The law is whatever the majority wants it to be because that is what the majority has decided it should be???

I do not support democratic mob rule, I support a government based on what is ethically proper. Whether you recognize the components of reality which lead to these conclusions is irrelevant as to what the correct conclusions are. Actually you haven't offered any arguments at all, merely assertions of the mystic authority of 50% plus 1 of the population.

As for your argument concerning property, you are right that I have no legal right to pray on your property, or in your place of business. But I do have a legal right to shop there, no matter my religion. That's because we have made a distinction to what constitutes a violation of rights and what does not. This is a violation.Now, you disagree. Well, then you will have to answer my above question: What makes YOUR interpretation of 'natural rights' as the correct one?

My interpretation reflects reality, yours are predicated upon the whim of a mob. Mine are founded in the very nature of man. Since humans first attained conceptual consciousness and the faculty of reason, they have survived and prospered because of their ability to lay claim to material items and use them as they see fit. They have not prospered because "the people" have declared the ability to force others to do their bidding.

In fact, I reject your natural right of property. Now what are you going to do? Call the police? Gee, sounds like Mob-Rule to me.

Mob rule is when the majority decides what the law is based on whim. If the police respond to my call for assistance against a proper thief like yourself in this scenario, they are doing so for a good reason.

Sir, Democracy IS a mob-rule, and what keeps us in line is largely (but not solely) the threat of coercion. Police, military, social stigmatization. It's what makes our society work. Take a look at any war-zone, and you'll see what happens when it is removed.

*Pure democracy is mob rule, and why you are inclined to support it is beyond me. As far as I can tell you are engaged in rigorous circular logic: The law is whatever the majority wants it to be because that is what the majority has decided it should be???

I do not support democratic mob rule, I support a government based on what is ethically proper. Whether you recognize the components of reality which lead to these conclusions is irrelevant as to what the correct conclusions are. Actually you haven't offered any arguments at all, merely assertions of the mystic authority of 50% plus 1 of the population.

As for your argument concerning property, you are right that I have no legal right to pray on your property, or in your place of business. But I do have a legal right to shop there, no matter my religion. That's because we have made a distinction to what constitutes a violation of rights and what does not. This is a violation.Now, you disagree. Well, then you will have to answer my above question: What makes YOUR interpretation of 'natural rights' as the correct one?

My interpretation reflects reality, yours are predicated upon the whim of a mob. Mine are founded in the very nature of man. Since humans first attained conceptual consciousness and the faculty of reason, they have survived and prospered because of their ability to lay claim to material items and use them as they see fit. They have not prospered because "the people" have declared the ability to force others to do their bidding.

In fact, I reject your natural right of property. Now what are you going to do? Call the police? Gee, sounds like Mob-Rule to me.

Mob rule is when the majority decides what the law is based on whim. If the police respond to my call for assistance against a proper thief like yourself in this scenario, they are doing so for a good reason.

1: That's a tautology, and not circular logic. And the law IS based on a whim. The way our legal system is set up right now, it is how the law works. Should we decide to abolish the constitution, then it is what would be legal, since the law depends upon the will of the people. Nothing else.

2: 50+1 isn't a mystical assertion, it's 'Majority rules', as is foundation of our democracy. In all honesty, though, Might Makes Right. So no, 50+1 won't make anything right by definition. Being able to beat the tar out of those that disagree, however, will. In the old days, that equated to 'greater numbers'.Just look at the world. History is written by the victors, laws are decided by those of greater numbers. In essence, political, social or physical might dictates what is right.And 'ethically proper'? Why, SO DO I. Now, why is your ethics superior to mine?

3: Now please tell me this 'nature of man'. Where is it written? Can I study and read it myself? If we have survived because of our ability to lay claim to material items and use them as fit, why would it be a right for me not to steal your material items? In fact, this just seems to support the thought of Might Makes Right. And oh, does this fact (the fact that people have prospered under certain conditions, whatever they may be) make it a natural right? I.e one that we can not violate, for no reason what so ever?No, it does not. It's a logical fallacy called the Naturalistic Argument, which claims that because something is 'natural' it is also 'correct'.Show me, without referring to God, that you have a specific 'Right' to something, that can not be taken from you, because of..Well..What? Evolution? And then tell me why I don't have a right to rape and maim and murder, since we have done this since ages past too. Why should we assume that ones rights are limited by harming others? This is all arbitrary, mate. We can make up any 'right' possible and claim that it is 'natural' and can't be violated. Saying 'we have always done it as such' is fallacious (Appeal to Tradition), saying 'It's natural' is equally so (Natural Fallacy).

Look, it's rather easy: From our legal point of view, your rights are not natural. They are given. Thus, we can limit them in any way we want. From a philosophical point of view, there might actually be Natural Rights (like given by God, or stated by Moral Objective Facts), but these can not be proven to exist with the current definition of evidence. It just doesn't work out. So while you might disagree with my Philosophical Standpoint on the issue, you must understand that the law does NOT rest on Natural Rights, and that is why you get screwed in the end.

1: That's a tautology, and not circular logic. And the law IS based on a whim. The way our legal system is set up right now, it is how the law works. Should we decide to abolish the constitution, then it is what would be legal, since the law depends upon the will of the people. Nothing else.

You have a serious, if not crippling problem with perscriptives and descriptives. Yes, the law is made by people's decision. What I am arguing here for, that people's opinions about such issues should change. Specifically, what people and the state should control, should be limited. By the way you are arguing it seems like you should have the same argument for literally any political topic whatsoever.

2: 50+1 isn't a mystical assertion, it's 'Majority rules', as is foundation of our democracy. In all honesty, though, Might Makes Right. So no, 50+1 won't make anything right by definition. Being able to beat the tar out of those that disagree, however, will. In the old days, that equated to 'greater numbers'.Just look at the world. History is written by the victors, laws are decided by those of greater numbers. In essence, political, social or physical might dictates what is right.

I was recently attacked on slanderous accusations that I am a segregationist. I wonder if anyone will see this and comment. I mean, you are literally saying "might makes right." If you can assault, rape, enslave, and murder an individual, you should, and there is nothing wrong with trying. I'll assume for your sake that you are either uneducated or are not serious.

At a certain point I actually respect your honesty here. Most proponents of mob-rule really try to dress up their beliefs with lots of mumbo-jumbo, but you cut straight to the tragic, evil, and laughably absurd point. I could just imagine you championing slavery in America the 1850s, or the genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda in the 1990s, or any other atrocity that has ever happened in history because it is what "the people" desire.

Unfortunately, there is a lot to break down in this next section.

3: Now please tell me this 'nature of man'. Where is it written? Can I study and read it myself?

You can certainly read accounts of man's existence and use scientific and internal perception. You can look at the differences between humans and other animals, you can track the development of civilization, you can read of the biological psychological components of man, or, given out free will, I suppose you can advocate for law at the point of a machete like you already do.

If we have survived because of our ability to lay claim to material items and use them as fit, why would it be a right for me not to steal your material items? In fact, this just seems to support the thought of Might Makes Right.

I suppose my statement was short and left implications in the air. What I meant to imply was that man survived through *legitimate claims of property predicated upon homesteading (mixing one's labor with the unowned). He could then needed to hold onto his rightful property and not be fearful of constant theft and looting by the likes of your kind.

And oh, does this fact (the fact that people have prospered under certain conditions, whatever they may be) make it a natural right? I.e one that we can not violate, for no reason what so ever?

Yes, it does make it a natural right. A right is the requirement for man's existence qua man. One can only violate such rights in the context of lawlessness or emergency, in which case rights become temporarily provisional. For instance, a man drowning at sea may rightfully trespass without permission on a private beach to survive, provided that he does not damage the land in some way, and leaves it promptly.

No, it does not. It's a logical fallacy called the Naturalistic Argument, which claims that because something is 'natural' it is also 'correct'.

You either don't understand my argument or don't understand the naturalistic fallacy. The latter refers to the belief that *nature, as in apart from man made, is somehow good or superior to the man made. When I say nature, I am referring to the state of being, or reality. If anything, my beliefs are directly assaulting the naturalistic fallacy by claiming man has the prerogative to bend nature to his will.

Show me, without referring to God, that you have a specific 'Right' to something, that can not be taken from you, because of..Well..What? Evolution? And then tell me why I don't have a right to rape and maim and murder, since we have done this since ages past too. Why should we assume that ones rights are limited by harming others?

I have already done that in my previous post. Rights can be taken away. Criminals temporarily lose rights. People can also step on rights, in which case they become criminals. You are the one who irrationally projects supernatural attributes to rights. I hold that rights are conceptual, moral demands for man's existence. They are no different from scientific entities in that sense. In the same way one can say, "a man needs water to survive," we can say, "humanity needs secure property rights (among other rights) to thrive." The evidence for these claims is abundant in philosophy, history, anthropology, psychology, politics, and biology. I could elaborate more, but I doubt you'd listen.

This is all arbitrary, mate. We can make up any 'right' possible and claim that it is 'natural' and can't be violated. Saying 'we have always done it as such' is fallacious (Appeal to Tradition), saying 'It's natural' is equally so (Natural Fallacy).

You can also make up another law of thermodynamics, or claim that gravity doesn't exist, but that does not make it so.

Klepto:You can also make up another law of thermodynamics, or claim that gravity doesn't exist, but that does not make it so.

And here we run into the descriptive/normative distinction. Or the fact/value distinction. Or the is/ought problem. Whatever you want to call it: your examples are quite a bit more substantial than 'rights'. And that is what makes them poor examples.

Consider how one might try to derive an ought (which is the only sort of thing that could be the basis for a right) from some set of facts:

In order for agent A to achieve goal B, agent A reasonably ought to do C.

Can a statement of this form be a fact? Can it be completely derived from facts? And if it can, is it truly an ought?

In short the answers to those three questions are tenuously, sort of, and not really.

The statement can seem factual, but the best way to achieve any goal depends on considerations that are not completely factual. Thus if we are to say that someone ought to do something to achieve a goal, we have to assume into existence some values. Nevertheless, it is possible that a suitably rigorous definition of goal B could allow for an optimization such that the statement makes sense and is more or less factual.

As for whether the statement can be completely derived from facts, the problem there is that there is an infinitude of statements that can be derived of that form because there are an infinitude of possible goals-- most of them being something no one would want (or of which no one would even have thought.) For every "in order for Sam to achieve eating a healthy meal, he reasonably ought to include at least one vegetable" there is an opposite: "in order for Sam to avoid eating an healthy meal..." If we are to say that these statements are completely derivable from facts, then we must admit both of those are equally factual. Doing otherwise means we have assumed an ought without deriving it from facts.

Would a statement of this form, then, truly be an ought if it could be derived completely from facts? It wouldn't. It's a conditional: if goal B, then ought C. The ought is the consequent. The problem is that conditional statements can resolve true whether the consequent is true or false (if the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false.) So the statement can consistently be 'true' even if one ought not do C: this makes whether one ought do C a matter which is not addressed adequately by the statement. It isn't an ought itself but rather a relation between oughts.

We can form oughts from other oughts and we can form oughts from other oughts and facts together. But we cannot derive oughts from facts alone. It simply isn't acceptable philosophy: it's a category mistake.

Ethics (and political philosophies which assert rights) seek oughts rather than relations between oughts: they seek oughts that are not conditional upon other oughts. Well, there's a reason why disagreements over such seem to be as often resolved with arms as argument: if one absolutely has to pick a fallacy to hang his hat on, ad baculum is one of the more effective choices. And unless one admits he's assuming the basis for his ethics or political philosophy, he's going to have to commit at least one such fallacy.

I just wrote an entire page, and it disappeared because I'm a moron. Argh.

Alright, going to make this short: You want to claim that some rights are a necessary part of being human, and thus can't be removed from the law by the will of the people? Alright, then you have removed Democracy as we know it form the equation.See, how are you to prove that X right is a 'necessary part' of being human? You can't claim that they are so because they appear to have been so for a long time (Appeal to Tradition) or because it is so now (Is/Ought Fallacy, as Sean explained).Basically, I ask of you to show why some Rights should be considered eternal and necessary, without appealing to our human nature, or tradition, or how things 'are'.

If your simple point is 'Some things should NOT be optional and be removed by mob-rule' then that is fine, but you have to explain why just YOUR claims on what should not be optional is the the only things that should not be optional.Saying 'Because it has allowed us to prosper in the past' isn't a valid answer. Why YOUR rights? Why not MINE?

In fact, you claim yourself that some rights can be taken away in certain scenarios, so perhaps I DO misunderstand your point. Wasn't your point that you should be able to do whatever you want that is 'within your rights' as long as you do not violate another mans rights? Then how can a right be taken away, without making it dependent on a social contract?